Follow by Email

Wednesday, 27 January 2016

Tony Rayns writes an open letter to the people of Busan supporting the work of Busan International Film Festival Director Lee Yongkwan

THE ATTACKS ON BIFF

Tony Rayns

As one of BIFF’s foreign
advisors, I’ve spent the past year in London watching events in Busan with
mounting disbelief. My incredulity began when Busan Metropolitan City Council
demanded that a documentary essay-film about the Sewol ferry disaster should be
withdrawn from the 2014 festival. When the festival very properly rejected this
interference in its programme selection, the City Council stepped up its attack
by demanding the resignation of the festival’s director Lee Yongkwan.

Lee Yongkwan, Director of BIFF

And when
Mr Lee very properly refused to resign, the national government suddenly
decided that it needed to rethink its subsidies to Korea’s film festivals – and
it was no doubt entirely coincidental that this entailed making a drastic cut
to its support for BIFF. And then, in December, the City Council launched a
criminal prosecution of Mr Lee for alleged fraud, citing “irregularities” in
his handling of fees paid to sponsorship brokers. It’s reported in the film-trade magazine Screen Daily that the City Council has
made it known privately that it will drop the charge if Mr Lee resigns.

There’s an old English
saying: “cutting off your nose to spite your face”. It means doing damage to
yourself in an effort to prove yourself right. This old phrase seems remarkably
relevant to Busan City Council – and, presumably, to its political friends in
the presidential Blue House.

I first visited Busan in
1995 at the invitation of Mr Kim Dongho and his team, who were then busy trying
to create Korea’s first film festival. Mr Kim asked me to meet the city’s mayor
and some councillors to explain to them (from the point of view of a foreigner who
works with both films and film festivals) what a film festival is and why I
thought they should support the BIFF project. The then-mayor Mr Moon asked me
some pointed questions and I did my best to answer them clearly and
persuasively. As we know, the city council did eventually decide to support the
festival, and it was launched in 1996.

I’ve been back to Busan
every year since then, some years more than once, and have watched both the
festival and the city grow. Obviously the city would have grown and developed
anyway in the last twenty years; the whole of the country has been transformed
since the end of military governments. But I don’t think it can be disputed
that BIFF has been one the main engines of the city’s growth. By basing itself in Haeundae, the festival
prompted major improvements to the city’s transport infrastructure: a
subway-line extension, a bridge across the bay. By attracting countless foreign
visitors, the festival helped turn the city from a rather dingy and parochial
port into a spectacular, cosmopolitan metropolis. The name “Busan” was known to
few people around the world twenty years ago, but it’s now known to many
millions – and that, too, is largely due to the festival. Such changes are
worth vastly more to the Korean economy than the government and city council
have spent on subsidising the festival.

This is why I’m
incredulous: the government and city
council seem hell-bent on damaging one of Korea’s proudest and most
cost-effective achievements. Is that what they were elected to do? Are voters
happy about the tactics and actions of their elected officials? It seems
incredible to me.

Looking at this situation
from Western Europe, on the other side of the world, I’m obviously not going to
comment on the legal issues. Those are
matters for Korea’s own cultural bureaucrats and lawyers. But the events of the
past year raise two big questions which are universal, and I’d like to modestly
express my thoughts about both.

The first is the question of
competence and professionalism in the running of the film festival. It’s transparently clear that the Busan
Metropolitan City Council’s problem with Mr Lee Yongkwan is political. The current council is right-wing, and it
sees Mr Lee as its political enemy. It takes this political opposition as a
valid reason to try to force Mr Lee out of his job. The council must think that
Mr Lee could easily be replaced with someone more to their liking: someone who
would not protest against political interference in the programme choices. This
doesn’t surprise me. I’ve seen bureaucrats thinking this way in many other
countries, including my own. But this kind of thinking is hopelessly ignorant
of the way that festivals need to be run and need to interact with their
audience, both at home and abroad.

Big film festivals are
complex institutions. At the most basic level, they need to find the right
balance between film as a business and film as an artform – or between the
interests of the film industry and the cultural specificity of the medium
itself. This means being able to talk to both business people (producers,
financiers, distributors) and creative people (directors,
writers, actors) in terms that they understand and respect. This perhaps sounds
easy enough, but it’s not: understanding the aesthetics of cinema is often not compatible
with the nuts and bolts of getting films financed and shown. It’s quite rare to
find a festival director and a programming team who are competent to have both
kinds of conversations. BIFF has been lucky to be led by Kim Dongho and his
successor Lee Yongkwan.

Festivals also need to
strike the right balance between the domestic and the foreign, and between
crowd-pleasing populism and specialist interests. The days when “cinema” was
easy to grasp are long gone, along with Hollywood cinema’s one-time automatic
dominance in the world market. “Cinema” now means many things to many
audiences. Some viewers want glossy entertainments which give them emotional
and experiential kicks, but others prefer more thoughtful and refined films which
are more obviously artful. And some are most interested in documentaries, or
animation, or experimental films, or even films which cross the boundaries
between the movie-theater and the art-gallery. From the very start, BIFF has
been sensitive to the differing needs of its many audiences, and has explored allareas of filmmaking with commitment and enthusiasm.

Of course, the obligation to
be both
generalist and specialist extends to political matters too. I never
thought I would agree with film director Park Chanwook about anything, but he was
absolutely correct to point out that it was the city council’s attempt to block
the screening of the Sewol ferry documentary which made the issue political, not
the festival’s initial decision to choose it for the programme. The documentary
was one of some 300 films screened by BIFF in 2014, and screening it did
not imply that the festival was promoting the film more than other
documentaries, or that the festival director and staff endorsed the film’s
point of view. It’s very simple: the
festival’s job is to present many points of view, some of which
will inevitably seem contentious or offensive to some people. That’s how
democracies work.

Thinking about the city
council’s concerted attacks on Lee Yongkwan, I can’t help being reminded of the
last time that selfish and narrow-minded politicians interfered in the running
of a Korean film festival. Does anyone else remember the disaster of the
Chungmuro Film Festival in Seoul, hijacked by politicians for what they thought
was their own interest? That festival died in its infancy, unable to survive
the conflicting pulls of politicians who thought that they could use it to
promote themselves and their political parties.

If Busan Metropolitan City
Council were to succeed in forcing Lee Yongkwan to resign, what would happen
next? No doubt some opportunist hack
could be persuaded to take on the job of festival director, even if it entails
constant grovelling to the city council, but many of the festival staff –
including the specialist programmers, for sure – would resign in sympathy with
Mr Lee, leaving the shiny new director to build a new team of
fellow-opportunists. At the same time, BIFF’s many friends around the world would
boycott the festival, probably also orchestrating a campaign of protest against
the city council’s political stupidity. Many filmmakers would refuse to supply
their films, journalists and critics would stop taking the film programme
seriously – and BIFF would soon go the same way as the Chungmuro Festival. As I
said, this is “cutting off your nose to spite your face”. Is that really what
Korea’s right-wing politicians want? Do
they think that these tactics will endear them to the film community at home
and abroad? Do they sincerely care at all about Korea’s status as a constitutional
democracy?

These considerations bring
me to the second big question raised by what’s been happening in Busan. Korean
politics changed profoundly in 1993 when the late Kim Youngsam was elected
president, and so did Korean society and the Korean economy. Almost everything
that we think of as characteristic of modern Korea has developed since 1993,
from the global fame of Korean film and television to the country’s ultra-fast
broadband network. At the same time, Korea has become a genuinely pluralist
society. Women and minority groups have made their voices heard as never before,
the lowering of trade barriers has given Korean consumers access to foreign
products and culture as never before, and political differences have been
debated openly. These are all hallmarks of a modern democracy. They were worth
fighting for, and they are worth defending.

Here’s a brief anecdote from
my own experience. One of my closest Korean friends studied film-making in
London and found himself dissatisfied with the standard of teaching at the
school. His graduation film was an attack on the school. It included
documentary sequences in which fellow-students discussed the shortcomings of
some of their teachers by name. It ended with a fantasy scene in which the
protagonist dynamited the school building. The question arose: would the school
include this film in its graduate screenings? Yes, it did screen the film. The school’s director told me that some
members of his staff had objected, but he felt it was important to give the
graduating student his voice. He didn’t run away from the criticism, as a
coward would, but instead faced up to it.

I had very little first-hand
knowledge of the “dark days” under military governments in Korea (my first
visit to the country was in 1988, when the worst was over), but I know from
Russia, China and Singapore amongst other countries how authoritarian
governments work. They don’t believe in debate and don’t tolerate opposing
points of view. Their first instinct is not to meet opposition with
counter-arguments but to silence it. When Busan Metropolitan City Council tells
BIFF not to screen a documentary that’s critical of the government, it’s a
textbook example of an attack on free speech and an impulse to silence opposing
voices. Apparently Korea’s right-wing politicians haven’t noticed or understood
the changes since 1993. Apparently they are nostalgic for the “dark days” of
censorship, of silencing dissenting voices and of strict social control. I’ve
always thought that Korea has a very bright future, and I’ve said so in public
many times, but the pig-headed political tactics of Busan’s city council mark a
step back into the past. It makes no sense to me.

Tony Rayns is a London-based film-maker, writer, critic and festival programmer with a long held interest in the films of East Asia. He has been a program consultant to the Busan International Film Festival since its inception.

Followers

About Me

This is a blog devoted to things of interest to cinephiles. The subjects are randomly selected in the manner of a diary and are somewhat oriented to Sydney, Australia. In the past I used to send out these entries via regular emails but this has trailed off and its best to check here for anything new.You can contact me direct via email at filmalert101@gmail.com